New Scenario: SPANNOCCHI'S DREAM II - Page 2

wulfir · #11 November 16th, 2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Siddhi said:
wulfir, seems you had an easy game...

Well, easy and easy - against a human opponet I would probably have been overrun.

I took losses mainly from enemy arty, and my infantry did not fare all that great vs the Hungarian infantry... hmm...

I split the reinforcing company in two, sent the company commander and two platoons to recapture BADERSDORF, and two platoons and the infantry (mot) to WELGERSDORF. Can't really say I used them to the max - also went a little sloppy during the last two turns and left the tankdestroyers stationary and suffred a few unneccessary losses.., the infantry platoon remained uncomitted throughout...

Siddhi · #12 November 16th, 2006, 04:53 PM

i tried using waypoints, impassible terrain to channel the hungararians, didn't seem to work so i let it go the way it should anyway - central attack gets reinforced, rather then reinforcing a sideshow.

i think your hyper active FAN spoiled the challenge, as i said normally they don't last that long. it was intended for at least a BN wourth of vehicles to get through the two lines - oh well

)

u mentioned also the poor performance of AUT infantry...this bothers me bit, since the newer units with the stg77 (steyer aug) should easily outshoot aks on the 100-300m range (i know both, and there is really no comparison). any easy and legal hints on how to improve their performance?

btw since you remarked on correct use of HQ units: i'm working on a another scenario i lifted right out my old "decision handbook" (bad translation) - displacing from one phase line to the other....under fire

.

wulfir · #13 November 16th, 2006, 05:50 PM

Great to hear, we need more people making scenarios!

I don't think the challange was spoiled because I happened to have a FAN or two crewed by the likes of Willhelm Tell...

, note that I did not venture into the mass of burning tanks/APC in and around HAHNERSDORF to capture that VH after all...

Austrian infantry did OK overall, but it seemed that they came out short on a number of shootouts with the Hungarians. Keeping units near their leaders will probably better the Austrians performance...

If you like to, it's possible to aid the AI some by timing when artillery will land..., while deploying you can shift arty - it will increase the delay and you can decide what turn and where you want the rounds to land..., this way you can help the AI by for example by having the AI cover its initial advance with smoke...

narwan · #14 November 16th, 2006, 06:41 PM

I played about 12 turns but the main thing I do miss is indeed smoke. That would help the hungarians to no small degre. The AI won't be very smart in deciding when and where to use it so Wulfirs suggestion makes a lot of sense.

A number of hungarian units seemd to be 'stuck', trying to move forward towards VH's but unable to do so because of impassable terrain. Again, the AI isn't smart enough to move these around. What you might want to do is run the game with AI vs AI a number of times and see how the hungarians move and where units tend to get 'stuck'.

Did you consider adjusting this a scenario to be played from the hungarian side? Now there would be a challenge! That can be in addition to the current version, not instead of it.

Narwan

Siddhi · #15 November 17th, 2006, 06:37 AM

guys, this is crushing news :/, i'm starting to wonder if I uploaded the wrong scenario... (but good feedback, thanks)

i redid the scenario about a dozen times, and playtested the last version about 6 times over a month or two (limted time i have for this goes into the editing, not much of a player really). i'll have to download the version i posted over the weekend and see what's different.

a. i am very worried about the smoke both of you mentioned, that was the only thing the AI seemed to get dead right in my games. 5/6 times it correctly used smoke after the reccon id`d the bunker positions and covered them from round 6 onwards (main force arrives from turn 7 and continous to turn 16 with the second echalon IIRC). also in 2/6 games fighter bombers damaged or destroyed a FAN within the first 6 rounds, similar ratio went to the Hinds, also 2/6 games.

wulfir thank's for the tip on that, looks like i'll have to do it to make it work - pitty, thought the AI had it covered.

b.narwarn: yes AI movement was frustrating for me - especially as i also used (in earlier versions) waypoints which made seemed to make no difference. obviously having a sizeable force stuck in the woods is pointless - what could you suggest, given that the waypoints did not seem to help? also, i would like to prevent the second echalon infantry from dismounting at the first defensive line (by the time they arrive that is already take, and sometimes the second line is already breached) - any tips on how to do this?

c. i actually did a small "attacker" scenario, SPANNOCCHI'S DREAM I: VICTORY WITHOUT BATTLE, as a test (it's posted on wargamer), it's not terribly good but it is a challenge

. tell me what you think.

once i get this game sorted out I could re-jig it for an attacker side, but do you think it would be interesting for anyone to have to move an entire regiment? i find a bn already a little bit too much...

PS: guys just realised i don't have the most recent patch, do you think that could explain the differences? will give it ago over the weekend

wulfir · #16 November 17th, 2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Siddhi said:
...but do you think it would be interesting for anyone to have to move an entire regiment? i find a bn already a little bit too much...

I would.

But that's not important, there's only one rule: create the scenario you yourself would like to play.

Replaying SPANNOCCHI'S DREAM II now as Sweden (I made it the first scen of a campaign and gave the human player battle points equal to the value of the Austrian troops).

Much harder now, I have stronger AA defences, but weaker artillery and weaker bunkers (armed with 75mm ATGs) and the Swedish Tank Destroyers don't quite have the range of the Austrian ones...

Siddhi · #17 November 18th, 2006, 10:09 AM

gimme!gimme!

Shan · #18 November 22nd, 2006, 11:08 AM

Siddhi,

I just downloaded your scenario today and will try it later but I can give you some feedback on your first one - really good work, playable for both sides! And quite a surprise, too, that someone does such great scenarios with so many accurate details on a more unusual battle pairing.

Unfortunately, my own attempts in scenario design cannt compare to yours - I guess one problem is that I always start a way too-big project. I tried to keep the core force small, and this was wise, but I got a nice story in mind and that takes time... I am currently working on a fictional campaign involving Algeria vs. Libya, and I got 6 battles finished andworking so-la-la already (some of them being just skirmishes, though), which is far from the end, as my story goes on and I do not want to deliver an incomplete thing. I'll try to finish this thing to get some feedback, as it's my first attempt.

Siddhi · #19 November 27th, 2006, 11:15 AM

Shan, thanks for your post! I'm afraid #1 is not quite as fancy as you say, but it certainly not easy to win (as WP).

I would welcome feedback on the second scenario, however I already know where I went wrong - the inclusion of the spotter aircraft at the start of the scenario leads to the AI getting its arty piority mixed up. i would like to change it however i have absolutely no time at the moment, hoping to do it soon.